Reply to Re: Temporal Nullification, Niiiice :P *beep* *beep*
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I can't believe science has any more actual tangible proof to offer me - they base their "proof" on what they agree is proof not that which they have seen with their own eyes... so, seems its all a question of faith. One way or the other.
You're not the first person to argue as such: religious people tend to equate both positions to faith and then one might as well choose either one. But that's false of course because observations and facts have only one explanation, not another. For example, in forensic research, it's even possible to determine the angle of the gun shot based on the blood splats around the victim: nobody was there to see it happen (like you're arguing) but it did happen and it has only one explanation.
The same holds for biological observations, cosmic background radiation and so on. The "you weren't there" argument also fails for God's act of creation.
You're not the first person to argue as such: religious people tend to equate both positions to faith and then one might as well choose either one. But that's false of course because observations and facts have only one explanation, not another. For example, in forensic research, it's even possible to determine the angle of the gun shot based on the blood splats around the victim: nobody was there to see it happen (like you're arguing) but it did happen and it has only one explanation.
The same holds for biological observations, cosmic background radiation and so on. The "you weren't there" argument also fails for God's act of creation.
